Mary A. Ross Hendriks

The defendant was charged with two counts under the City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 547: operating as a short-term rental operator without registration, and failing to include an operator's registration number in an advertisement.

The Airbnb stay data established that a booking at the defendant's principal residence was made using another person's registration number before the defendant's own permit was issued, generating a deposit to his account.

Although the reservation was cancelled before the guest arrived, the court found that the actus reus of count 1 was made out, interpreting "reservation" and "carrying on business" broadly.

The defendant's due diligence defence failed on both branches — he could not establish a reasonable mistake of fact given his admitted knowledge that his application was still under review, and his remedial efforts (contacting Airbnb and the guest to cancel the booking) were characterized as post-offence conduct relevant only to sentencing.

Count 2 was dismissed because no evidence of an actual advertisement was tendered; the officer never saw one and could only speculate as to its historical existence.

The defendant, Roberto Russo, was charged with driving while holding a handheld communication device under the Highway Traffic Act.

He pleaded not guilty, asserting the defence of necessity.

Russo, a diabetic, testified that he used his cell phone to check his blood sugar via an implanted sensor and an app (LibreLink) after receiving an urgent alert and feeling unwell, while stopped at a red light.

The court found both the officer and the defendant credible.

While the statutory exemptions for device use did not apply, the court found that Russo successfully established the common law defence of necessity.

The court determined there was clear and imminent peril to his well-being, no reasonable legal alternative given the urgency of a diabetic event, and that the harm avoided (potential incapacitation while driving) was proportional to the harm inflicted (brief phone use while stationary).

The charge was dismissed.

The defendant, Xueyong Xu, was charged with two strict liability offences under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, for failing to install a carbon monoxide alarm adjacent to sleeping areas and failing to maintain smoke alarms in operating condition at his rental property.

The court found the prosecution's evidence credible and reliable, while the defendant's testimony lacked credibility and reliability, particularly regarding his shifting explanations and lack of maintenance records.

The defendant's due diligence defence failed.

The court found the defendant guilty on both counts.

The defendant, 961557 Ontario Ltd., operating as "The Crooked Cue," was charged with failing to comply with an emergency order under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act for operating an indoor dining area during COVID-19 restrictions.

The prosecution alleged the establishment was not an "outdoor dining area" as required by O. Reg. 263/20.

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt, primarily because no clear, written regulatory order was established, and the interpretation of "outdoor dining area" by public health officials was subjective, inconsistent, and based on fluid guidelines rather than the regulation's plain wording.

The charge was dismissed.

The defendant, 961557 Ontario Ltd. operating as "The Crooked Cue," brought a s.11(b) Charter motion for a stay of proceedings due to inordinate delay in a Provincial Offences Act charge.

The court calculated the total delay, subtracted periods attributable to defence conduct (including a largely unsuccessful disclosure motion, issues with setting trial dates, failure to perfect the s.11(b) motion, a directed verdict motion, and a motion to take a view), and accounted for COVID-19 as an exceptional circumstance.

The net delay, after deductions, fell below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court matters.

The defendant failed to demonstrate the remaining delay was unreasonable or that they took meaningful steps to expedite the case.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendant, Matthew Tyityan, was charged with stunt driving under the Highway Traffic Act for speeding 154 km/hr in a 100 km/hr zone.

The defence challenged the police officer's credibility regarding the use of notes to refresh memory, the timing of radar device testing, and potential interference from other vehicles.

The court found the officer's testimony credible and consistent, accepting his observations and the radar reading.

The defence's arguments were deemed speculative, and the prosecution was found to have proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in a conviction.

The defendant, 961557 Ontario Ltd. (The Crooked Cue), was charged with failing to comply with an emergency order by operating an indoor dining area during Stage 2 COVID-19 closures, which only permitted outdoor dining.

The defendant brought a motion for non-suit, arguing the prosecution failed to adduce evidence proving the establishment was not an outdoor dining area.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that there was sufficient admissible evidence, direct and circumstantial, which if believed, could reasonably support a finding of guilt.

The court clarified that the test for a non-suit motion does not permit weighing evidence or assessing credibility, distinguishing it from the s.11(b) analysis for delay under R. v. Jordan.

A 19-year-old Canadian citizen with no criminal record was charged with 13 offences including attempt murder, occupying a motor vehicle with a firearm, and related firearms offences arising from a shooting incident in Toronto.

The Crown sought detention on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds in a reverse onus hearing.

The accused proposed a plan of house arrest with two sureties (his mother and sister).

The court found the Crown's case was circumstantial with significant evidentiary weaknesses regarding the identity of the getaway driver.

The court granted release on strict conditions, finding the accused had met his onus on all three grounds.

The defendant was charged with five offences arising from a motor vehicle collision on June 5, 2017, on Lawrence Avenue West in Toronto: changing lanes not in safety, failing to remain at the scene, failing to report the accident, failing to provide required information, and failing to disclose insurance particulars.

The complainant testified that the defendant's vehicle struck his BMW, and the defendant fled the scene.

The defendant was later identified through the vehicle's licence plate.

At trial, the defendant denied the collision occurred.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and consistent, rejected the defendant's contradictory and inconsistent evidence, and convicted on all five counts.

The defendant was charged with three offences under the Highway Traffic Act arising from a three-vehicle collision on June 9, 2018, in Toronto: starting from a stopped position not in safety, operating a vehicle with an illegible licence plate, and failing to report the accident.

The defendant admitted to striking two parked vehicles while attempting to adjust his parking position but characterized the contact as minor.

The court found that the defendant's vehicle was parked on a highway, that he set it in motion without ensuring safety, causing significant damage to both other vehicles.

The court also found the defendant's licence plate was not plainly visible as required by law, and that despite being informed the damages exceeded the $2,000 reporting threshold, the defendant failed to report the accident to police.

The court convicted on all three counts.

This is a reverse onus judicial interim release (bail) hearing for an accused charged with multiple serious offences including impaired operation of a motor vehicle, firearm-related offences, drug trafficking, and weapons possession.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court granted bail with strict conditions, finding that the accused met his onus despite the serious nature of the charges.

The decision emphasizes the importance of a strong plan of release with credible sureties and the narrow scope of the public safety component under the secondary ground.

The City of Toronto prosecuted a home comfort equipment retailer and lessor for carrying on the business of a plumbing contractor without a licence, contrary to Chapter 545 of the Toronto Municipal Code.

The defendant hired independent plumbing companies to install and remove a carbon water filter that it leased to a consumer.

The court found that the defendant did not carry on the business of a plumbing contractor within the meaning of the regulatory scheme.

The court distinguished between the business of leasing chattels and the actual performance of plumbing work, which was conducted by licensed independent plumbers.

The court dismissed the charge, finding that a broad interpretation of "plumbing contractor" would lead to absurdity and would require property management companies, building superintendents, and hardware stores to maintain exclusive master plumbers on staff.

This is a judicial interim release hearing under the Youth Criminal Justice Act for an 18-year-old accused charged with 14 counts including unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, careless storage of firearms and ammunition, possession contrary to a prohibition order, and unlawful possession of explosives.

The accused had recently pleaded guilty to robbery and weapons offences and was placed on probation and a weapons prohibition order, but was arrested two weeks later with a homemade firearm, ammunition, and related materials in his bedroom.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court granted bail with strict conditions, finding that the accused met his onus on both grounds, emphasizing the untested nature of the firearm, the accused's demonstrated rehabilitation efforts while in custody, and the strict supervision plan proposed by his sureties.

The accused was charged with multiple serious offences including fraud over $5,000 in association with a criminal organization, conspiracy to traffic firearms and cocaine, and breach of recognizance.

The Crown sought detention on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.

The court found that while the accused met his onus on the primary ground due to strong supervision conditions including electronic monitoring and house arrest, he failed to meet his onus on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found credible evidence of multiple breaches of prior bail conditions, membership in a criminal organization, and a substantial likelihood of committing further offences that would imperil public safety.

The court also found that detention was necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice given the serious nature of the charges and the overwhelming wiretap evidence.

The accused was detained.

This is a judicial interim release (bail) hearing for an accused charged with conspiracy to commit firearms trafficking as part of Project Sizzle.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The accused, a 30-year-old with a significant criminal history including multiple breaches of recognizance and prior firearm-related convictions, proposed release with two sureties and electronic monitoring.

The court found the proposed sureties inadequate, the accused's history of breaching court orders concerning, and the Crown's evidence of conspiracy compelling based on intercepted communications.

The court detained the accused on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

The accused was charged with serious offences including kidnapping, forcible confinement, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, extortion, conspiracy, carrying a concealed weapon, possession of property obtained by crime, and drug possession.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The accused proposed release on house arrest with his mother as primary surety, supported by his uncle and girlfriend.

The court found the Crown met its onus on both grounds and ordered detention.

The court found the accused played a mid-level role in a planned, prolonged kidnapping and torture scheme, and that the proposed sureties lacked sufficient knowledge and control over the accused despite their good intentions.

The accused was charged with two counts of possession of a loaded firearm, two counts of possession of a firearm knowing its possession was unlawful, and one count of possession of a firearm obtained by crime, following a RIDE check that revealed two loaded firearms in a vehicle.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds in a reverse onus bail hearing.

The court found that the accused had discharged his onus on both grounds and granted bail with strict conditions including house arrest, residence with his mother as surety, and a substantial pledge from a co-surety.

The applicant sought to vary a probation order imposed following his guilty plea to breaching section 40(1)(c) of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The original probation order required restitution of $100,000 to Alternative Risk Services within two years.

The applicant requested an extension of time to complete the restitution payments, citing delays in obtaining approval from the Canada Revenue Agency for business loss claims and ongoing financial difficulties.

The respondent consented to the variation.

The court granted the variation, extending the probation period and establishing a payment schedule, and additionally imposed a free-standing restitution order pursuant to section 41(1) of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

A judicial interim release hearing for an accused charged with aggravated assault, robbery, threatening death, and possession of a knife.

The accused, a 19-year-old refugee claimant with a serious youth record for armed robberies and robberies, was arrested following an incident where a complainant was stabbed and robbed.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The defence proposed three sureties, including the accused's aunt.

The court found that two of the three proposed sureties lacked credibility due to false testimony regarding criminal charges.

The court determined that the plan of release was inadequate given the serious nature of the offence, the accused's criminal history, and the inability of the remaining suitable surety to control him.

The accused was detained on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

A worker fell approximately 22 feet from a roof while operating a motorized buggy to dump garbage during a re-roofing project.

The defendant corporation was charged with two counts under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for failing to ensure prescribed fall protection measures were carried out.

The defendant had installed a guardrail system and provided fall protection equipment, but the worker removed the guardrails without tying off.

The court found the actus reus proven beyond a reasonable doubt and rejected the defendant's due diligence defence, finding no clear process was in place for the alternative garbage disposal method at the time of the accident.